By Dilip Cherian
The litany of extensions continues. The latest is Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh, whose tenure the Modi government has extended by a year, until October 31, 2027.
Also Read
The rationale is not difficult to construct: defence modernisation, indigenous manufacturing, procurement reforms and his additional charge as DRDO chairman all demand continuity.
That is where the larger question begins. I think if continuity justifies keeping the Defence Secretary, Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan, Home Secretary Govind Mohan and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri among others what does it say about succession planning at the top? Each extension may have its logic. Taken together they suggest a government that’s increasingly comfortable, with exceptions.
Extensions are hardly new, nor are they inherently undesirable. Certain assignments are genuinely sensitive; an abrupt change can disrupt complex projects. Yet there is a difference between extending an officer for a compelling institutional reason and repeatedly postponing retirement because replacing an incumbent appears inconvenient.
The administration below bears the cost. Each year, another officer’s career timetable may be disrupted. Aspiring candidates for posts are left waiting, sometimes seeing their prospects fade away entirely.
Still, a system that relies on seniority, performance and predictable tenure starts to look more and more dependent on executive preference.
That perception matters. Officers may start calculating not merely what the rules require, but what the political leadership rewards. Candour becomes riskier; loyalty, or at least the appearance of it, becomes a career asset. When exceptions become routine, murmurs among those overlooked grow louder, and confidence in a fair career structure grows weaker.
More desks, less purpose
An MEA desk issuing travel advisories every hour sounds reassuring in a world where geopolitical crises can turn a holiday into a nightmare overnight. But is this about protecting Indians abroad, creating another bureaucratic fiefdom, or launching yet another pipe dream destined to run out of steam?
Timely, credible travel advice is essential. But does it require an hourly desk? Unless circumstances demand such frequency, this risks confusing bureaucratic activity with public service.
The uncomfortable question is whether this is another jobs-for-the-boys exercise dressed up as administrative innovation. A new idea can quickly become an excuse to create posts, accommodate preferred appointees and build another hierarchy. First comes the announcement, then the staffing proposal, followed by the argument that an establishment, once created, cannot be allowed to wither.
Before expanding the MEA’s machinery, someone should explain why existing diplomatic missions, consular services and crisis-response systems cannot deliver the same results. If better technology, coordination and communication are the answers, fixing existing systems makes more sense than multiplying desks and designations.
A global, whistleblower-style facility where people can flag emerging dangers might prove useful, provided reports are verified and acted upon. Otherwise, it risks becoming another digital suggestion box.
For now, this remains corridor chatter, not confirmed policy. The test is simple: will it protect Indians or provide comfortable berths for a chosen few? The government has enough desks. It needs fewer excuses to create more.
Dissent is not disruption
Are the police preparing to understand Gen Z or simply figuring out how to contain it? The recent conference in Hyderabad, attended by senior police officers from southern states and Union territories to discuss Gen Z protests alongside organised crime and terrorism, raises an important question.
Much of the Gen Z mobilisation has been concentrated in northern and western states. Yet the southern police leadership would do well to distinguish regional realities from a generic threat narrative. Social media may unite young protesters, but their grievances and political contexts differ.
Treating youth protests as a security concern risks blurring the line between dissent and disruption, and between legitimate anger and criminality. Intelligence-sharing and inter-state coordination are essential against organised crime and terrorism. Protests, however, demand a different response: engagement, restraint and an understanding of what is driving young people onto the streets.
Gen Z is not a threat category. If policing begins with suspicion rather than understanding, it may end up creating the very alienation it is supposed to contain.
